Case 6013990/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Adarkwa v Kettonby Care Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6013990/2025
- Decision date
- 24 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Adarkwa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal determined that Mr Adarkwa's employment with Kettonby Care Limited terminated on 21 November 2024. The case was listed as concerning unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unlawful deductions from wages and the Working Time Regulations, although the judgment did not identify or address those complaints separately.
The Tribunal found that the complaints had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to present them in time. It therefore dismissed the claim. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses all complaints without identifying their types separately; this classification follows the gov.uk listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses all complaints without identifying their types separately; this classification follows the gov.uk listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses all complaints without identifying their types separately; this classification follows the gov.uk listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses all complaints without identifying their types separately; this classification follows the gov.uk listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable test
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.